WHITBY FREE PRESS, WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 23, 1985, PAGE 5 "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson THE CROW'S NEST by Michael Knell I read with interest the comments made by a collegue of mine who works for another newspaper in our area concerning his views on the state of the Royal Family. Essentially, what my collegue said was that anyone could easily become King or Queen, By the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, her Realms and Dominions Beyond the Seas, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc. etc. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint him, but that is not the case. For the record, I'll quite happily admit that I am a monarchist; I believe that the system of gover- nment known as parliamentary democracy is the finest to be found anywhere on this usually dismal planet. Some of the things he had to say were quite true. For example, engagirng in gossip about the Royal Family has become something of a national pastime in Britain and most Britons can hardly wait to read the Sunday scandal sheets for the latest bits of tidbits on Princess Margaret and other "Royals". But a recent Gallup Poll confirmed that the vast majority of Englishmen would not change their form of government and become a republic along the lines of France or the United States. What my collegue, and most non-British Canadians, fail to understand is that the Monarch is more than just a person. Elizabeth the Second represents con- tinuity and stability. In a world where political upheaval is becoming a way of life, she represents everything that is just about the democratic system of government. More importantly, she represents 1,000 years of the peaceful evolution of democratic government. The democratic system enjoyed by members of the British Commonwealth got its start back in the 12th century when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta. It continued when William of Orange proclaimed into law the Act of Succession some 500 years later and continued into this century when the signing of the Acts of Parliament enshrined the prin- ciple of participatory government in England for all time. My collegue, as I said at the beginning, believes that anyone could become the Monarch. He obviously hasn't read Robert Lacey's book "Elizabeth the Second and the House of Windsor". In this book, Lacey describes with a fair amount of detail what it takes to prepare oneself for the Crown. Elizabeth the Second was trained from the time her father, King George VI, assumed the throne from his brother the Duke of Windsor to be Queen. Her son, Prince Charles, has been trained for the awesome responsibilities that await him in his mother's death since the moment of his birth. The Monarch holds the pivotal position in Parliament. Parliament is made up of three parts: The House of Commons, the House of Lords (in Canada, the Senate) and the Crown. Her role is not an equal one but is the foundation by which our form of government works. No one knows more about the constitution and her role in it than the Queen. Her most important function is a simple one, to save her people from their wor- st enemy: themselves. She is the non-political authority that holds the politicians and the bureacrats in check. She has three constitutional respon- sibilities towards her governments, be it in Britian or Canada: "to advise, to encourage and to warn." The Queen's most important job is to tell her gover- nments when they have gone to far and should re-think and re-evaluate their responsibilities and policies. Her role, and that of the Governor-General of Canada, is not political. Her sole concern is the state and welfare of the nation. Sir Harold Wilson, a former Prime Minister of England, once remarked that the Queen was the one person to whom he turned for advise which he knew was not political. She has no political axes to grind and does not seek the ultimate power of government. Because her sole concern is the welfare of the nation she became to Sir Harold a voice of reason. When the process of government fails, it is she who steps in to ensure that the rights of her people are not abused. I would like to point out that during the earlier 1970's the Governor-General of Australia was faced with a government that could not secure Parliament's con- sent to raise money. Government in Australia was paralysed. The dollar was falling and an economic crisis was facing the nation. He dismissed the gover- nment, issued a writ of election and was vindicated in the outcome. The people of Australia rejected the policies of the government that could not secure sup- port in Parliament and choose another instead. The traditional role of the Monarchy played a vital role in the preservation of parliamentary democracy late in the twentieth century. The Governor-General's act was not political. He had to act in the best in- terests of the nation. The livlihoods of his fellow Australians was threatened by the politicians, so he acted. The politicians changed but the system was preser- ved. That is what is so important about the Monarchy, not why Princess Diana and Princess Anne don't seem to get along. The Queen also serves a symbol by which the nation rallies in time of need. She is a symbol of national unity. Who may I ask, could provide a better sym- bol? Pierre Trudeau? Brian Mulroney? Rene Levesque? William Davis? John Turner? Are these men the symbol of good government and democracy? Are they a unifying force? Do they always act in the best interest of the nation or are they bound and trapped by party politics? The Queen is a living link with our heritage, a constant reminder of the impor- tance of democracy. Having said that, I know my readers will forgive me when I stand up and say: "God Save the Queen!" SOL WAY A new kind ofsaviour I am not a fan of either excessive violence or sexual exploitation. I am not attracted to either of them. However, I am also not threatened by them. I can watch. I can endure. I can even sometimes en- joy them. Enjoy? You must be kidding say the dyed-in-the- wool opponents of sex and violence. How can a true liberal like Solway possibly enjoy human degradation or suffering or any other kind of physical deviation or excess? Shame. Shame. Alright. I am caught. My son-in-law to be brought home a VCR. The plague of the eighties. The most important and all-consuming fad since Mah Jons has finally made its way to my life. The devil that is consuming more and more of our leisure time, tur- ning us into stay-at-homes; the device that is creating havoc in the entertainment and hospitality business. Wait. Hold it. This is not supposed to be a tirade against VCR addiction. After a couple of weeks of exposure the novelty is wearing off, just as I predict it will with millions more who will suddenly realize their social life bas been shot to pieces. The real issue here is the availability of sex and violence to all, a sort of Sodom and Gomorrah for every home. The other night I watched two typical films. The first was the box office bit "Sudden Impact" and the second was the soggy sex bomb "Titillation." I saw the Clint Eastood shoot-em-up right to the end. The other, I watched a few ends and a succession of fronts and a repetition of coitus imaginatus often enough that I saw only about thirty minutes of it then gave up emotionally drained. But I watched. That is the point. Real violence is abhorrent to me. The public appetite for filmed violence makes me sad and worried. For me, that Clint Eastwood violence became meaningless because there was so much of it. After you overdose on it (what behaviorists call "flooding,") it stops mattering. I remember watching a Brenda Vaccaro film (Canadian made and highly box office suc- cessful) called "Blood Weekend." After the fifth or sixth grisly killing it no longer mattered. Dirty Harry and his slogans about law and bad guys have propelled him to the top. How many bad guys does he have to "waste" before the audience gets the idea. Apparently there is no end to the ap- petite for vengeance. Same thing with the grunts and groans and shrieks of ectsasy over make-believe copulation and the display of breasts and bums. How much is enough? At what point does a reasonably grown-up person see or experience enough? After a while it becomes more than stimulating. Finally you just watch because you are too tired to turn it off. Watching Dirty Eastwood was not so much an en- durance test in tolerating violence as it was my own fascination with his special version of justice and the apparent dignity we are giving to the "New" approach to Law and Order and Motherhood. (I could even say "New Order," but that would hearken back to something even worse. But it is a clue.) In Sudden Impact (in case you missed it or don't want to bother) a woman and her younger sister were brutally raped by a gang of no-goods led by a cackling lesbian. The younger sister, lapses into catatonia after the experience and is a silent, staring inmate in a mental home. TEN YEARS LATER (I never understood why it took her ten years to get angry enough) the older sister goes on a killing rampage, shooting each of the rapistS the same way, first in the genitals then between the eyes. She is steely-eyed, implacable, almost psychotic in her determination. Meanwhile Dirty Harry (as usual on the verge of being tossed off the force because of his frontier approach to justice) is hunting for the killer. He finds her after she has finished her trail of carnage. Now look here, if you keep reading I am going to spoil the story by telling you how it ends, so stop now. You are warned. Just before Eastwood and the avenging sister walk off into the sunset, he arranges things so that he is the only one who knows she is the killer, but he misleads the forces of Law and Order into deception so that they cannot trace the killing to her. Moral of the story. It's alright to take the law into your own hands because criminals are after all a CONT'D ON PG. i1